Obviously its not as effective as the 2002 Bucs, but that being said if you have the right type of defenders that are capable of playing the scheme it can def. present problems for the opposing offense.

For some reason I don't see Monte returning to the T-2 thus far he has talked to teams with 3-4 defenses. I can't see Dallas moving to the T-2 the corners would be fine but the entire D-Line/LB corps would have to be changed.

__________________
Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

For some reason I don't see Monte returning to the T-2 thus far he has talked to teams with 3-4 defenses. I can't see Dallas moving to the T-2 the corners would be fine but the entire D-Line/LB corps would have to be changed.

If Dallas switched to 4-3 they could let Spencer walk while cutting Jay Ratliff and Marcus Spears and end up with this:

Carter - Lee - Draft/FA

Ware - Hatcher - Lissemore - Crawford

They have to make major moves to get under the cap but combine the above with cutting Free, extending Romo (his cap hit will hurt otherwise), restructuring Carr and Ware, and a few other minor moves they could end up with almost 20 million in cap space for the draft/FA.

I'm beginning to wonder if the switch is more for financial reasons and less for application with our standing roster.

That's all you need to concern yourself with. Everything else is trivial.

The 4-3 alignment doesn't mean anything. You guys never run 2 gap concepts anyway. So a 4-3 alignment is simply making Ware play with his hand in the dirt, that's pretty much it. No difference at all. And your base LE will be a pass rusher instead of a base run defender.

Maybe your defense will get smaller and faster as a philosophical change bc of the alignment but that's about it.

And in terms of coverage, it's all the same ****. You'll run more zone to get more turnovers, that's the only difference. You'll blitz less.

But all these changes I'm mentioning aren't exclusive to a Tampa 2 defense. It's just the philosophy of your coordinator. Those changes could have happened with a 3-4 guy anyway. It's all the same ****.

The changes you'll notice are less blitzing and less man coverage. You'll still blitz and play man, just not as much. And you won't drop your pass rushers in coverage or disguise overloads the same way.

It's complicated, we can talk about this for hours, but without a chalk board we're all just wasting our time.

The main thing for you to take home is you'll blitz less and play more zone. That's it.

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

Tampa 2 as a pure scheme is no longer in existence. Teams who build their philosophy around Tampa 2 concepts exist but there are so many variations of it that we can't bracket it into a singular category.

The Tampa 2 philosophy has seen such a transformation that you can't really define it anymore. Many teams who look like 3-4 teams superficially are actually Tampa 2 teams conceptually.

Basically, the line has been blurred so much that you can't define schemes anymore, it really depends on the coordinator's personal style.

For your case, Kiffin is a pure Tampa 2 guy who will run a lot of traditional Tampa concepts. It can work, but like any scheme you need the right players to make it work.

Lovie Smith probably runs the closest thing to what Kiffin wants to do.

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

That's all you need to concern yourself with. Everything else is trivial.

The 4-3 alignment doesn't mean anything. You guys never run 2 gap concepts anyway. So a 4-3 alignment is simply making Ware play with his hand in the dirt, that's pretty much it. No difference at all. And your base LE will be a pass rusher instead of a base run defender.

Maybe your defense will get smaller and faster as a philosophical change bc of the alignment but that's about it.

And in terms of coverage, it's all the same ****. You'll run more zone to get more turnovers, that's the only difference. You'll blitz less.

But all these changes I'm mentioning aren't exclusive to a Tampa 2 defense. It's just the philosophy of your coordinator. Those changes could have happened with a 3-4 guy anyway. It's all the same ****.

The changes you'll notice are less blitzing and less man coverage. You'll still blitz and play man, just not as much. And you won't drop your pass rushers in coverage or disguise overloads the same way.

It's complicated, we can talk about this for hours, but without a chalk board we're all just wasting our time.

The main thing for you to take home is you'll blitz less and play more zone. That's it.

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

See the 2009 Super Bowl for a reason why no one runs it as a base D anymore. Great (or even just good) QBs will rape it, running teams will wear it down. It is easy to find holes in the zone coverage and keep moving the chains. The result is long-ass drives that tire the defense out (which means more injuries, especially if they're undersized fast players) and gives your teams' offense few opportunities to score. It makes sense to use some of the concepts of it, but unless you have the talent to really run it effectively (which means stud DL so you can rush 4 only, stud MLB, super-athletic WLB, disciplined SLB that can cover and set the edge, durable and tough corners that can make plays on the ball and support run D, an enforcer at SS, and a ball-hawking FS), you'll get picked apart or run into the ground.

There was a stupid theory out there that the Colts ran the Tampa 2 because it was an easy plug-and-play defense, and the Colts didn't have the money for a more exotic defense. Well that is crap. If anything you need more top-end defensive players for it to be effective. As evidenced by all the great players on those old Bucs teams.

BBD gem. The fact that it's so dispersed and watered down has me worried that in it's pure form, it's not a good defense for today's NFL. I was kind of hoping this discussion would turn to talk about why that came to be.

Simple. Quarterbacks will kill you if you run the same concepts over and over again. You have to disguise your coverages, and become multiple front.

The passing game has evolved so much over the past 10 years that schemes really no longer exist. Everyone runs everything now bc they have no choice, they have to run everything. Confusion and disguise is the name of the game.

How you confuse and disguise depends on what background your coordinator learned his craft under.

Now teams confuse and disguise in different ways. A Rex Ryan keeps his coverages simple but uses complex blitz and alignment packages to confuse your protection. So he's an aggressive DC who disguises the pass rush as his bread and butter.

A Bill Bellichick is a guy who confuses and disguises through coverage and alignment. His pass rush concepts are relatively simple but he'll use a variety of fronts and formations and alignments to sell you 1 coverage then go into another coverage to confuse quarterbacks.

But the genius of Bellichick is he also uses multiple alignments that confuses the protections bc it's multi gap and varies depending on situations.

Then you have guys are simple alignment and pass rush but uses coverage alignments and disguises to confuse quarterbacks. These are typically your Tampa guys.

But all coordinators of different schemes leave open the possibilities of doing everything bc they have to be multiple to defend the complicated passing attacks of today's league.

See the 2009 Super Bowl for a reason why no one runs it as a base D anymore. Great (or even just good) QBs will rape it, running teams will wear it down. It is easy to find holes in the zone coverage and keep moving the chains. The result is long-ass drives that tire the defense out (which means more injuries, especially if they're undersized fast players) and gives your teams' offense few opportunities to score. It makes sense to use some of the concepts of it, but unless you have the talent to really run it effectively (which means stud DL so you can rush 4 only, stud MLB, super-athletic WLB, disciplined SLB that can cover and set the edge, durable and tough corners that can make plays on the ball and support run D, an enforcer at SS, and a ball-hawking FS), you'll get picked apart or run into the ground.

There was a stupid theory out there that the Colts ran the Tampa 2 because it was an easy plug-and-play defense, and the Colts didn't have the money for a more exotic defense. Well that is crap. If anything you need more top-end defensive players for it to be effective. As evidenced by all the great players on those old Bucs teams.

On the Seahawks' Defensive Scheme Versatility/Diversity
By Danny Kelly on May 7, 4:02p 98

"Our defense is a 4-3 scheme with 3-4 personnel. It's just utilizing the special talents of our guys." - Pete Carroll

There's been a lot of talk the past two seasons about the Seahawks 'hybrid' 4-3 / 3-4 defense. Until just recently though, I'm not sure I'd seen the coaching staff so openly use the two terms when describing what they play. As Carroll said above, the basic base defense the Seahawks run is a 4-3, a descendant, through Pete Carroll, of the Monte Kiffin family of 4-3's.

A base 4-3 is easy to discern - you have two speedy defensive ends, a gap penetrating 3-technique defensive tackle, and a squat, block-taking-on 1-technique defensive tackle on your defensive line. Behind them, you've got a rangy and instinctual middle linebacker that's capable of dropping back down the middle in pass coverage but big/tough enough to shed blocks and make plays on the run. The weakside linebacker is typically very quick and flows to the football, racking up tackles and flying around. The strongside backer lines up with the tight end and is stout against the run, plays contain, but able to fall back into pass defense. That's the basic seven man front of a 4-3 - and I'm really just generalizing so I'm sure there are a million nuances I just skipped over. That's not meant for this article - I really just want to try and break down what the Seahawks have done and will do.

The hard part about that though is that the Seahawks have done and will do lot of different things. They adapt, evolve, and change throughout the year and throughout a game. As Carroll recently acknowledged (above), they run a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. That's why Alan Branch, the Seahawks' 3-tech, is not a gap penetrator. He's more like a 3-4 defensive end or a nose tackle. That's why Red Bryant isn't a speed 'jet' end, flying off the edge like a bat out of hades. No, he's more like a 3-4 defensive end, a '5-technique', taking on two gaps and playing the run. Chris Clemons isn't a prototypical defensive end, and some of the Seahawks' linebackers are a little bit miscast in the traditional 4-3. K.J. Wright, or example, was best projected into a 3-4 defense as an outside linebacker out of Mississippi State. He's long - 6'4, and maybe a bit heavy at 246 for the rangy, athletic 'flow to the football' type of guys you'd expect to see.

The Seahawks drafted Bruce Irvin (6'3, 245), Bobby Wagner (6-0, 241) and Korey Toomer (6'2, 235) in this year's draft. When Brock Huard asked him whether they look for 3-4 outside linebackers or 4-3 guys when they do their evaluations going into the Draft, Seahawks defensive coordinator Gus Bradley responded:
"I think it's a unique combination that we're looking for. In the 3-4, the linebackers are big, physical type guys; the guards are going to come right at them and they have got to be stout enough to take on the guard. Then, the 4-3, you want speed. The Lance Briggses, the Derrick Brookses, the guys that can really move well, lateral movement, and those guys are always protected. Well, we do both. Instead of maybe the 260 pound linebackers, or the 225 pound guys, we like that guy that's 240 and can run a high 4.4. So, we're getting that hybrid that can do both. That's what we're really trying to be looking for. But, we try not to put them in too many positions where they're taking on the guard, so we're probably leaning more towards the 4-3 principles."

Take Bobby Wagner, for instance.
"The great thing about Bobby is that we do feel that he can play all three linebacker positions. When we evaluated Bobby, we watched just his block protection, getting off blocks, because that's really important, especially on the inside, and we felt like among the linebackers, he really showed up there. It was a need area for us with the loss of David Hawthorne, we really felt like we needed an inside linebacker type."

Back to K.J. Wright.
"On K.J. Wright - we took him, and a lot of people were asking, "well, where are you going to play him? Is he a MIKE, is he a WILL, is he a SAM?" Well, we tried him at SAM. And then we thought, well, let's give him some reps at MIKE and see how he does. And, he played multiple positions in college, and we trained him that way, and that's a credit to coach Norton, he's really trained all our guys to play all three positions."

Here's the key:
"We really developed this defense so you can play multiple positions - It's not as advanced as maybe some 3-4 teams and maybe not as advanced as some 4-3 teams, but, we can do both. And, that's where I think we create some issues for offenses. They look and say, "gah, we can't put in our 3-4 plan, or our 4-3 plan, because they do both, and it might limit some of the things they do."

This commentary by Bradley pretty much echoes some things that Leroy Hill talked about with John Clayton on Saturday. When Clayton asked Hill about the difference between Pete Carroll's defense and the schemes they ran under Jim L. Mora, Hill replied:
"With Jim Mora's scheme, it was more set up for the linebackers to run around and make plays. That's why they put a lot (of money) into the linebackers corps, it's why they drafted the linebackers so high, and you know, they expected the linebackers to make plays. With Pete's scheme, it's a lot more beef up front. The d-line is set to make a lot of plays; a lot of the rushing scheme is for the LEO to come off the edge. With the first round pick (Bruce Irvin), I think he'll go opposite of Clem and create a lot of pressure. The front four is a lot more important in Pete's scheme than it was in the previous regime."

"When I sit back and study the (Pete Carroll) defense, it's almost like a hybrid 3-4. When you stand the LEO - which is Clem - into a two-point stance, it's almost a 3-4, if people look at it like that. If you look at the starting lineup from last year - the body types, you have a Red Bryant at defensive end, and the other defensive end is Chris Clemons, you have a 6'4 corner and a 6'3 corner, you have Earl at safety with speed and the other safety (Kam) is huge and hits. The different body types create a lot of problems. A lot of speed, a lot of long, rangy bodies, but I love playing in that scheme - it's one of the funnest schemes I've ever played in."

Hill then hit on some things that we've been talking about here lately, the importance of the defensive sub-package guys, the 10-15 snap players that Greg Cosell championed, noting, "The later you go in the draft the more holes, limitations, flaws a player has. Success becomes a function of how he's utilized. In era of sub-packages a lot of players contribute, even if they play 12-15 snaps per game. Often the key is finding/defining a role."

Said Hill - "Whatever defense you run, you're going to have some kind of hole somewhere. If you're big and beefy, somehow someway you'll probably give it up in the pass, so you have to have a different corps of guys to come in and play and adjust to whichever team you're playing."

I haven't watched every other team in the NFL closely enough - though I have followed Kenny's lead and am in the process of watching every game from last year during this slow time in the offseason - but I haven't watched every team close enough to really know how often they roll out subpackages and different looks. I do know that the Seahawks are variable in their approach, and change things up year-to-year and game-to-game.

In 2010, the Hawks mostly utilized a 4-3 Under defense that Carroll had run the last decade at USC and we here at Field Gulls endeavored to explain that in detail in a several part series. If you're bored, you can read them again- The 4-3 Under Defense, Part I: An Introduction; The 4-3 Under Defense, Part II: The Seahawks' Hybrid; The 4-3 Under Defense: Coverage Schemes; Seahawks' 4-3 Under Player Types: Safeties; The Seahawks' 4-3 Under Player Types: Cornerbacks; The Leo End and the Blitz; Seahawks 4-3 Player Types: Linebackers; Seahawks 4-3 Player Types: Defensive Line; The Leo End and the Run Defense; Seahawks 4-3 Defense: Press Coverage and The Jam.

One of their most used subpackages was the "Bandit", which I revisited a couple of weeks ago here. Here's the problem with reading those articles though - there's no telling if that's what they'll run with in 2012. In 2011, they went from the 4-3 Under to a 4-3 Under/4-3 Over hybrid and eschewed the Bandit for Base/Nickel personnel almost entirely the whole time. Let's revisit, using some stills.

Here's the basic 4-3 Under, the scheme they used a majority of the time in 2010. They still used this in 2011, but with less regularity.

As you can see, Chris Clemons is aligned in his wide-9 look, off the weakside tackle. Branch is the 3-tech, Mebane the 1-tech, and Red Bryant is at 5-tech, shaded off the right tackle. Here, K.J. Wright is the SAM, up on the line on the outside of the tight end, and you can see Leroy Hill as the WILL, lined up in front of the weakside A-gap, and David Hawthorne, lined up in the strong side B-gap. Nothing exotic here.
Next, you can see the main variation of this scheme, the "Jet Ends" look, with Raheem Brock subbed in for Red Bryant.

The main differences here are the gap controls. Clemons and Brock, LEO1 and LEO2, are both in their wide-9 alignments, and K.J. Wright is out to the strong side, up near the line, playing contain. Earl Thomas has crept in to watch the strongside B-gap, and that has Hawthorne and Hill slide over a tad, mirroring Mebane and Branch. An interesting look, with the obvious goal of getting more pressure on Sam Bradford (here).

Next, let's take a look at something the Seahawks started doing more of in 2011, the 4-3 Over. The main difference between the Over and Under front is that in the Under front, the defensive line is shifted to the weak side of the offense, as you can see above. In an Over front, the d-line is shifted to the strong side of the opposing offensive line. It's easiest to just watch Alan Branch, because his positioning gives away the alignment.

Below, you can see the difference. The gaps aren't as easy to discern above, but basically, the alignments have shifted towards the strong side of the offense, with the 3-tech switching to the strong side B-gap. The other thing to note in over front looks, is that weakside linebacker and strongside linebacker distinctions can be thrown out the window. In this case, K.J. Wright becomes the right outside linebacker, and Leroy Hill becomes the left outside linebacker. This is one reason the designations 'WILL' and 'SAM' for Hill and Wright became a bit muddled last year, and why I'm sure they'll get muddled going forward with Korey Toomer as well.
Here's another look.

Above, both Wright and Hill are closer up to the line. The LEO is no longer technically a LEO in this look because Clemons is lined up heads-up on the weakside tackle, but that's not a huge deal. Same goes for Mebane, who is heads-up on the center, in 0-tech alignment. Just another wrinkle to watch for.

Now, here's where people start talking about the 3-4. Below, against the Eagles, the Seahawks used this look fairly often throughout the game. You can see that Clemons and Wright are lined up in two-point stances up on the line in what looks very much like a 3-4. Big-bodied Branch, Mebane and Bryant are stuffing up the middle, with Hill and Hawthorne patrolling behind them.

Below, another look...

This isn't something you saw every week with a ton of frequency, but it's why Bradley talks about how teams must prepare for the Seahawks as both a 3-4 and a 4-3 - because they have tendencies for both. In essence, the Seahawks are a 4-3 team - it's what Pete Carroll has run for the past couple decades and I really don't know if he's willing to just switch to a pure 4-3. That said, Carroll has shown a willingness to get creative with his players and talent available, and show some exotic looks to confuse and disorient the offense. Because of this, I'm looking forward to 2012 to see what Carroll, Brandley and company have in mind with their shiny new toys in Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner, Korey Toomer, Jason Jones, Winston Guy, and others.

The Giants used the Cover 2 in winning both their SB's, of course, it has evolved just like every other defense and is mixed in with elements that are not Cover 2. However, it is still the best option to stop the great QB's from completely going wild.
It has its weaknesses but what defense doesn't but if you have the right personnel, it can be very effective in pass defense with its 2 deep Safeties.
DC's are creative today, they have to be, so they mix in elements of other defenses to fool the QB's but in essence, the Cover 2 is still a very effective defense against a strong passing attack.

The Giants used the Cover 2 in winning both their SB's, of course, it has evolved just like every other defense and is mixed in with elements that are not Cover 2. However, it is still the best option to stop the great QB's from completely going wild.
It has its weaknesses but what defense doesn't but if you have the right personnel, it can be very effective in pass defense with its 2 deep Safeties.
DC's are creative today, they have to be, so they mix in elements of other defenses to fool the QB's but in essence, the Cover 2 is still a very effective defense against a strong passing attack.

They used cover 2 plays (and not all that many of them, actually...They played 1 safety and 3-4 corners on over two-thirds of their snaps and man on some of their 2 safety sets), not a cover 2 or tampa 2 defense. Perry Fewell plays way more 1 safety backfields than anything else according to the actual snap breakdown. I absolutely schooled you in this the other day. I guess you didn't learn. Running zone coverage does not make you a cover 2 base. Running 2 safeties sometimes does not make you a cover 2 base. Even running both on a majority of snaps wouldn't make you a tampa 2 base, which is what this thread is about.

Both Tampa 2 and Cover 2 as base are just about the worst options to stop good passing attacks. Good quarterbacks tear them apart easily. I have no idea why you would want your team to run them a lot against good offenses. That's just silly.

Basically, you're wrong about almost everything. Go read the explanations posted by many of us instead of ignoring them. I guess this isn't your first go-around on this topic judging by the multiple rep comments specifically saying so that I got after explaining it all to you before.

They used cover 2 plays (and not all that many of them, actually...They played 1 safety and 3-4 corners on over two-thirds of their snaps and man on some of their 2 safety sets), not a cover 2 or tampa 2 defense. Perry Fewell plays way more 1 safety backfields than anything else according to the actual snap breakdown. I absolutely schooled you in this the other day. I guess you didn't learn. Running zone coverage does not make you a cover 2 base. Running 2 safeties sometimes does not make you a cover 2 base. Even running both on a majority of snaps wouldn't make you a tampa 2 base, which is what this thread is about.

Both Tampa 2 and Cover 2 as base are just about the worst options to stop good passing attacks. Good quarterbacks tear them apart easily. I have no idea why you would want your team to run them a lot against good offenses. That's just silly.

Basically, you're wrong about almost everything. Go read the explanations posted by many of us instead of ignoring them. I guess this isn't your first go-around on this topic judging by the multiple rep comments specifically saying so that I got after explaining it all to you before.

Funny, the announcers of the SB commented clearly that the Giants ran a Cover 2 to stop their opponents passing attack at least for that game. Lovie Smith still uses the Cover 2 with lots of variations(they mix in man to man occassionally to confuse their opponents) and his defense in Chicago was one of the best this year. Minny uses a Cover 2 scheme with variations(they mix in man to man to confuse their opponents just like man to man defenses mix in zone to confuse their opponents) and their defense was one of the best this last season.
Why don't you do some research before trying to pass yourself off as some great defensive mind. If you bothered to do your homework, you wouldn't come out with egg on your face.

Funny, the announcers of the SB commented clearly that the Giants ran a Cover 2 to stop their opponents passing attack at least for that game. Lovie Smith still uses the Cover 2 with lot of variations and his defense in Chicago was one of the best this year. Minny uses a Cover 2 scheme with variations and their defense was one of the best this last season.
Why don't you do some research before trying to pass yourself off as some great defensive mind. If you bothered to do ypour homework, you wouldn't come out with egg on your face.

1) Announcers say that Tim Tebow is a good QB. Can't be trusted. I only have the snap breakdowns for the full season, not for one playoff game, but I can tell you that Tom Brady was not shut down. 276 yards and more TDs than INTs, and a 91.1 rating is a quality start for a passer. For perspective, extrapolate that to a 16 game season...4400 yards, 32 TDs, 16 INTs. LOL "shut down."
2) The Bears do not run a Tampa 2 or Cover 2 base defense or anything that even remotely resembles it. The last time they did was the 2009 season. Last season, the Bears ran a crapload of MAN coverage (about half and half with zone! Not "occasionally"). They had one safety deep and one cnear to the box more than they did two deep. The Bears run a standard 4-3 defense now.
3) Same deal for the Vikes. They run more cover 2 as a play than the Bears, but still definitely not even remotely enough for their defense to be labelled as a Cover 2 base. It's just a 4-3 defense.